As I contemplate the possibility of an appalling injustice about to be perpetrated upon us, more therapy is needed ... I feel another Open Letter coming on.

As with my earlier one, this letter should be read as if addressed to members of the HD Committee. A version will be sent to them as well as to MPs and the media.

Sir,

Honours and (Dis)Appointments

In the matter of the Pingat Jasa Malasyia (PJM), one of the issues that confronts us is that of ‘Honours in Confidence’. This is the system under which the deliberations and recommendations of members of the Committee on the Grants of Honours, Decorations and Medals are kept secret until released into the public domain at some point in the future (hoping, I suspect, that by that time we troublesome veterans are all dead and our Honours system will be the responsibility of Brussels).

I am told that the HD Committee has no responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act to divulge what they’re saying about the PJM and British Medals Policy, and the Committee does not fall within the scope of the 2004 reviews of the murky British Honours System first by the Public Administration Select Committee and then by Sir Hayden Phillips - both of those reviews made fundamental recommendations hoping to achieve greater openness and transparency in respect of a seriously flawed historical 'honours' system. It was, after all, within living memory that a Prime Minister was caught selling honours (Lloyd George - 1925), another PM tried to sort out the mess (John Major, 1993) and another thought he’d cracked it but hasn’t (Tony Blair, 2004).

The system remains wrapped in secrecy and run by shadowy figures lurking in the corridors of power.

The concept behind the HD's anonymity is that the individual members can be frank about what they say. This may be appropriate when considering whether a person should be nominated for an award, but it is clearly not appropriate when making recommendations about the course of British Medals Policy. I thought we had moved on from the incestuous, secretive, mediaeval patronage controlled by the privileged for the privileged.

Very often a recommendation can seem logical and justifiable. One example - The HD Committee recommends that the PJM should not be accepted for wearing because it commemorates events more than 5 years ago and the rules say ‘Requests made in respect of services rendered more than five years previously, or in connection with events in the distant past (e.g. commemorative awards), will not be entertained.’ [Jack Straw, Commons, 21/11/2005]

My question will be ‘Why?’ when recommendations have been made for the unrestricted acceptance (i.e. the award can be worn ‘in line’) for Russian Medals for an event over 60 years ago now and for the Suez Canal Zone clasp (nobody would criticise that award - it was too long overdue).

The explanation may be entirely rational. But to reject the PJM as a wearable award is a bit like the HD Committee saying ‘OK by us’ to the Russians (a nuclear power that is a tad close to Europe and useful to us) and ‘not on your Nellie’ to Malaysia (on the other side of the planet so not as useful any more now that we can make our own synthetic rubber).

We shall not know unless my question is addressed. If the PJM is not accepted, or not accepted as a wearable medal, we are entitled to know which of the British Medals Policy rules were applied to the PJM - and why. It is simply not good enough to say ‘because the rule is there’ - you have to explain why the rule was applied in this instance.

We now have laws that reflect 2005, not 1925, which purport to suggest that freedom of information is a basic human right. But, in reality, we have no such freedom, no such rights, when those in the corridors of power are able to hide behind the anonymity afforded them by, for example, the antiquated and discredited system of Honours in Confidence.

Barry Fleming

PS Here's a cracker for your cracker. What's the difference between Democracy and Feudalism? With Feudalism, it's your count that votes!